Mr N Gemelli
Chairman of the Committee on Petitions
European Parliament
L2929
Luxembourg

10th November 2003

Dear Mr Gemelli

Re: Petition to European Parliament

Please find a petition submitted on behalf of EU citizens addressed
to the European Parliament. We request that the Members of the
Parliament investigate the merits of the petition prior to accepting
accession to ECHR (under Article 7.2 of the Draft Constitution).

This petition raises very serious questions regarding
protection of the rights of EU citizens as presently afforded
by the Charter in addition to those customary rights afforded
by the Convention. It is our contention that an accession to the
Convention will remove rights presently available under the Charter
within the context of EU legislation.

Analysis of a cross section of cases does not inspire
confidence in the mechanism of ECtHR as our research showed varying
interpretations of the Convention by the Court. This therefore
leads to the conclusion that rights of EU citizens cannot be entrusted
in the hands of an unaccountable, secretive, dictatorial intergovernmental
organisation, whose interpretation of Articles 6, and 19 of the
Convention is dependent on the “mood” of the Rapporteur/Court
as analysing a number of cases show that interpretation is inconsistent
thus enabling the courts of member states to abuse their power
with impunity.

Rule 49 of the ECtHR stipulates that
all statements of the Rapporteur’s report shall contain relevant
facts of the case. However it is a matter of public record that
the Rapporteur’s report is secret and inaccessible to the
public, and more importantly the applicants. It is easy to demonstrate
that the Court’s decision based on these secret reports not
only does not contain relevant facts of the case but also contains
false materials, knowingly introduced by the Rapporteur, and used
in order to dismiss valid applications made under Article 34 of
the Convention claiming violation by the member states of rights
protected by the Convention.

We make a series of very strong allegations and statements
regarding the administrative fraud within ECtHR and the flaws in
the interpretation of ECHR.

It is of public importance and interest that the issues
raised in this petition are debated within the European Parliament
before EC/EU deceives on the question of accession as it is my considered
opinion that accession will affect the rights, currently protected
by the Convention and the Charter, of every EU citizen.

Denial of fair hearing, a characteristic of the whole gamut of fascist
and communist inquisitorial practices, has scarcely been recognised
in Western Europe. In reality, inaccessibility to fair hearing is
on the increase within member states as well as within ECtHR. This
is because guarantees against outside pressures do not exist, and
there are no safeguards from political interference to ensure the
independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

Thank you for your attention and we look forward to
your confirmation to have our petition entered in the general register.

1. This petition is based on the numerous documented
telephone calls and documents provided to the Environmental Law
Centre by EU Citizens, concerned that their only avenue to seek
fair hearing and effective remedy within EU in the context of EU
legislation will be taken away if Part 1 Article 7.2 of the Draft
Constitution is implemented and all aspects of rights comes under
the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

2. Furthermore with the advent of emails and world
wide webs, it is increasingly difficult for officials to hide wrongdoings
and ECtHR in particular must be aware of the number of websites
appearing alleging human rights abuses by ECtHR.

3. This petition is supported by documents confirming
that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is not a court that
has regard to the Convention Articles, and relies on “secret
reports” to which Applicants have no access and thereby are
denied any opportunity to question any inaccurate information at
the admissibility stage. The supporting documents will show that
many decisions and judgements of the ECtHR are not compatible with
the rights guaranteed by the Convention.

4. The ECtHR was the first international human rights
court, and is the only human rights court before which cases may
be initiated by individuals directly claiming a violation of human
rights by a State.

5. The Interights Report of May 2003 - Judicial Independence:
Law and Practice of Appointments to the ECtHR (Appendix 2) points
out that “As a leading human rights court internationally,
it would be anomalous and unacceptable if appointments to the Court
failed to meet the international human rights standards that it
is charged with implementing, including those requirements relating
to the independence and impartiality of judges. In addition, flawed
appointment procedures leave open the prospect that judges selected
will lack the requisite skills and abilities to discharge their
duties. This risks having an adverse effect on the Court’s
standing and on the development of authoritative human rights jurisprudence
in Europe.”

6. One of the key problems pointed out in the Report
is that nominees from member states often lack the necessary experience
and even fail to meet the very general criteria set out in the Convention.

7. The Report further states:

Article 21(1) of the Convention establishes the formal
criteria for appointments to the Court:

The judges shall be of high moral character and must
either possess the qualifications required for appointment to high
judicial office or be jurisconsults of recognised competence.

These terms are commonly used in respect of international
courts and tribunals. Accordingly, it is often suggested that States
‘know what they mean’. That said, they are undefined
and aspects of their scope remain unclear, possibly laying the foundation
for the nomination or election of unqualified or otherwise unsuitable
candidates.

The criterion of “high moral character”
is vague and general. In a recent case, a State justified the omission
of its sitting judge from its list of candidates on the basis that
he was not of “high moral character”. The allegations
made against the judge were widely considered to be baseless, but
the State maintained that it was upholding its obligations under
the Convention by excluding him from its list.

The only safeguard in the procedure lies at the Sub-Committee
level. Regrettably, this mechanism is at best limited, and at worst
is fundamentally flawed. The Sub-Committee consists of parliamentarians,
most of whom lack human rights or international law expertise.

8. Paradoxically this raises the question how can
the Court monitor and enforce national court compliance with these
standards, when the Court itself fails to meet international human
rights standards and is on record as saying that “it is not
itself a party to the Convention”.

9. For a court professing to be a guardian of Human
Rights whilst paying scant regard to Convention Articles and rely
on dictatorial techniques ie “secret reports” by the
Rapporteur and further informing applicants, “This decision
is final and is not subject to any appeal either to the Court or
to any other body.” questions the high moral ground that this
Court professes to uphold. ECtHR as a Human Rights custodian interprets:
-

“Article 6 of the European Convention on Human
Rights as requiring that civil rights and obligations shall be determined
by an “independent and impartial tribunal”. It further
qualifies this by underpinning that for a Judge to be independent
depends on the manner of appointment, the term of office, the existence
of safeguards against outside pressures and whether there is an
appearance of independence.

10. If this criteria is then applied to the custodian
court ie ECtHR, judges to the Court are appointed by States submitting
the names of three candidates. This raises the question of independent
accountability of high standards of judicial independence and effective
protection of rights by the convention, judges deciding disputes
“without fear or favour, affection or ill will”. The
basis of this petition disputes the accountability and independence
of these judges and or the Court’s officials.

11. While it is proper to be vigilant and condemn
any threat to the independence of the judiciary in national courts,
the Court’s own members are appointed through a system that
contains no adequate safeguards against political interference and
appended documents shows that national judges introduce purported
evidence” to discriminate and violate human rights of individual
EU citizens, in the knowledge that ECtHR will aid and abet this.

12. It is a matter of public record that the ECtHR
court officials are on record as saying “The Court, (ECtHR)
as the supervising judicial organ, is not itself a party to the
Convention.”

13. In an attempt to rectify this anomaly, the attention
of Secretary General of the Council of Europe (COE) and Secretary
General of the Parliamentary Assembly has been drawn to occurrences
of irregularity and impropriety within the ECtHR but there has been
no response to-date.

14. This serious matter has also been drawn to the
attention of other responsible bodies such as the DG I - Legal Affairs,
Committees of COE such as Directorate for Legal Co-operation, Efficiency
of Justice - Legal professionals, Administrative law and justice,
The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, Directorate
General of Legal Affairs, European Commission for Democracy through
Law, Group of States against corruption, Members of Political Affairs
Committee, Members of Human Rights Committee and the Steering Committee
for Human Rights (CDDH). To-date we have not received any response.

15. All members of the Parliamentary Assembly and
members of Committee of Ministers and Permanent representatives
of the COE have been informed of the irregularity and impropriety
occurring within ECtHR and the abuse of power. Decisions are made
at the admissibility stage based on secret reports that are openly
denied to applicants by the Court and officials are on record as
stating that they do not have to comply with the Convention Articles.
This action of the Court officials is incompatible under Rule 49
of the Court but there is no independent mechanism whereby it can
be independently investigated.

16. Finally all members of the European Parliament
have also been informed of the abuses occurring within the ECtHR
and have been requested to take an active role in preventing EC/EU
accession to the ECHR via Article 7.2 of the Draft Constitution
until the ECtHR has introduced safety measures to ensure the protection
of human rights and respect for the Rule of Law that is intrinsic
in the Convention itself.

17. Most interestingly if actual submissions to ECtHR
and subsequent Decisions are critically analysed, it shows that
material knowingly to be fallacious is introduced by the Rapporteur
into his secret reports in order to enable the dismissal of valid
applications under Article 34 of the Convention.

18. Requests have been made to the Secretary General
of the COE that the immunity of the Court officials under the Statute
of the COE be removed for those who misbehave and misuse their office
but with little success.

19. We have further asked members of the Committee
of Ministers to seek advisory opinions on the interpretation of
the Convention Articles and the protocols but once again we have
been given nothing but excuses.

20. The extensive damage done to the rule of law by
the misinterpretations occurring, misinterpretations by the Court
incompatible with the Convention Articles particularly Articles
6 and 19, must be corrected before the situation becomes irreparable;
as a domino effect will occur throughout the judiciary of all the
Member States, as well as in the interpretation of the Convention,
seriously affecting the respect for law as well as faith in the
rule of law protecting 380 millions of EU citizen’s rights.

21. This petition has been signed by many EU citizens, (Appendix
1) but is by no means complete but rather only the beginning. More
signatures will be submitted to the Petition Committee in support
of this petition in due course.

BASIS OF THE PETITION

22. In order to reinforce the general principle that
the European Union respects human rights and fundamental freedoms,
a principle upon which the Union is founded (Art 6 TEU), we asked
the Committee on Petitions to refer this serious issue to Parliament
for debate as the outcome will affect all EU citizens and is of
public interest and importance.

23. Current interpretations of the Convention Articles
by the ECtHR bring the credibility of the intergovernmental organisation,
the COE under the spotlight. In view of this, can EC/EU still go
forward with accession to the ECHR when there are questions regarding
the functioning and accountability of the ECtHR which cannot withstand
public scrutiny?
24. This petition, on a matter of general public concern and importance,
raises the matter of urgent examination of the whole question of
accession and calls upon the Parliament to safeguard the human rights
of EU citizens in accordance to Article 6 of TEU; since European
Citizenship is made up of a set of rights enshrined in the EU Treaties
and gives all nationals of European Union Member States the guarantee
of fundamental rights as upheld by the European Convention of Human
Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU .
25. The Court (ECtHR) interpretation of Article 6 is “Article
6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a “fair”
hearing. ECtHR contends that as long as there is an “independent
person” sitting at a hearing the question of “fair hearing
does not arise”. This concept does not take into account the
“impartiality” of the Court and or the fact that the
aggrieved person who has limited resources is unable to argue the
complexities of the legal point of view against the State with unlimited
resources. This effectively removes any chance aggrieved persons
may have to show that their human rights have been violated by national
courts. It is no secret that legal aid is often denied to law abiding
citizens and they are left to their own devices to defend their
cases. The fact that these people are not legally trained is not
considered important by ECtHR. Taking this together with ECtHR’s
interpretation of Article 19, that primarily matters are for regulation
by national law and the national courts, effectively removes any
chance aggrieved persons may have to show that their human rights
were violated by national courts by the judge knowingly dismissing
the facts of the case and introducing “unsubstantiated fact”
as part of the judgement. This is evident when comparing oral proceedings
with the written versions of the hearings, which must be approved
by the judge.
26. The Court further applies Article 19 of the Convention as being
“According to its established case-law, it is for the domestic
authorities and in particular the courts to establish the facts
of a case in the light of the arguments and evidence submitted to
them and the Court is not competent to deal with an application
alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by the domestic
courts”. This stance of the Court ignores the fundamental
right to “fair hearing” if the national court refuses
to accept evidence, or knowingly to introduce false materials as
“evidence” an individual has no mechanism or powers
to compel the national court to take into account essential evidence.
Furthermore an individual has no means to compel the national courts
to examine “fraudulent” documents and or affidavits
submitted by officials, as happens on a daily basis in the family
courts.
27. ECtHR instead of attempting to stop abuse by national courts
assists national courts by covering such abuses as detailed below;
unlike the present avenues (right to Petition and ECJ) open to EU
citizens within the context of EU legislations. The principle that
EC Member States were bound to make good damage caused to individuals
by infringements of Community law for which they were responsible
extended to where the damage flowed from an erroneous decision by
the court of last instance of a Member State. The Court of Justice
of the European Communities so held (Case C-224/01 Kobler v Republik
Osterreich ), inter alia, on a reference for a preliminary ruling
by the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen (Regional Civil
Court), Vienna, Austria. This is a most important safeguard for
the rights of EU citizens when the judiciary are held accountable
and in the process the citizens are not disfranchised. This argues
strongly that the interpretation of all human rights under the Charter
of Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights and ECHR by ECJ should
be seen that accession to ECtHR is a step backward in the protection
of human rights of EU citizens.
28. As the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention
stated: -

“Unfortunately, evidence is steadily and increasingly
surfacing of widespread corruption in the courts in many parts of
the world.”
29. More importantly the ECtHR by its own admission bases its decisions
on ‘secret reports’ drawn up by the Rapporteur at the
‘Admissibility Stage’; at which point only 5% of the
cases are admitted. Sight of these ‘secret reports’
is denied to all applicants. Although in accordance to the Rules
of the Court this report should be accessible to the public, and
must contain relevant facts of the case. When the Court has been
told of inaccurate and inconsistent ‘facts’ of the case
having been introduced by the Rapporteur in these secret reports,
no attention is paid to this and the applications dismissed without
any reason being given, in denial of rights protected by the Convention.
30. Furthermore, Article 29 of the Convention states “If no
decision is taken under Article 28, a Chamber shall decide on the
admissibility and merits of individual applications submitted under
Article 34.” And Article 28 states “A Committee may,
by a unanimous vote, declare inadmissible or strike out of its list
of cases an application submitted under Article 34 where such a
decision can be taken without further examination. The decision
shall be final.”

31. Yet according to the communication from the Court
to all applicants, “In accordance with the Rules of Court,
a judge of the Court, acting as Rapporteur, will carry out a preliminary
examination of this application and report to the Court on the question
of its admissibility.”

32. This raises a serious question concerning which
Rules of the Court authorise, or instruct the Court to appoint,
a judge of the Court acting as Rapporteur to report in secret to
the Court on the question of admissibility of an application, when
clearly Article 28 and Article 29 of the Convention state the admissibility
of any application is to be determined by either the Committee or
the Chamber.

33. While Rule 49 (c) of the Court states “Where
a case is considered by a Chamber pursuant to Article 29 §1
of the Convention, the report of the Judge Rapporteur shall contain
a proposal on admissibility and on any other action to be taken,
together, if need be, with a provisional opinion on the merits.”
Neither the Rule of the Court nor the Articles of the Convention
authorise the Judge Rapporteur to report to the Court on the question
of the admissibility of the application yet this is what is happening;
which means the admissibility of an application is being decided
by the single judge Rapporteur relying on his secret report which
cannot be questioned.

34. It would appear from existing communications from
the Court that the practice of the Court is to permit decisions
on admissibility to be taken by a committee consisting solely of
senior Registry officials - this is a Court practice which is not
authorised by the Articles, Protocols or Rules of the Convention.
The Registrar is on record as having purported to have the power
to determine the basis and merit of applications submitted by applicants.
35. It is of interest to note that in communications to applicants,
the Court has written “This decision is final and is not subject
to any appeal either to the Court or to any other body.” A
statement by the Court that is excessive and acting beyond its power.
Are we to understand that this means no other international tribunal
has the power to look at a Decision of the Court because the ECtHR
says so?
36. This raises a very important question, whether EU/EC accession
to the ECHR should take place knowing full well the deficiencies
within the practises of the ECtHR. If the ECtHR is now operating
questionable practises with impunity, is the EU Parliament willing
to trust the protection of the human rights of its 380 million citizens
to an organisation such as the ECtHR.
37. Furthermore at the present time, the Court is making decisions
on a ad-voc basis i.e. if a particular Case precedent does not suit
the Court, the Court has knowingly and willingly ignored its own
established case law, even if in doing so has meant violating the
ECHR Articles .
38. Effectively if accession to the ECHR takes place, all the rights
of EU citizens that are presently guaranteed under the Community
Legislation and the Charter will be removed and replaced by the
discretionary power of the courts of Member States and the ECtHR.
39. May we remind the Parliament that people outside the EU have
better protection on Human Rights as compared with EU citizens in
view of the Council Regulations 975/1999 and 976/1999, which go
a long way in protecting the Human Rights of the people of the Developing
and Third Countries.
40. We believe the matters we raise in this petition fall within
the sphere of activities of the European Union and within the principles
and objectives of the European Union, particularly if the EU is
to strengthen the confidence of the many millions of Europeans in
the judicial systems of the EU Member States.
SUPPORTING CASES (Appendix 3)

41. Below are some of the cases that were critically
examined in relation to applications submitted and the Decisions
given. These are only a small selection of recent and commonly occurring
archetypal cases. In reaching its decisions and judgements the Court
has given no regard to the rule of law and established case law,
neither to rights protected and guaranteed under the Convention,
UDHR, the EU Charter and Community Legislation.

Background
In 1969-1971 Applicant was elected President of the Uganda Law Society.
In 1986 he sought and was granted refugee status in the United Kingdom
and was subsequently given permanent residence in the United Kingdom.
Though an English Barrister for over 10 years he had been refused
admission as a solicitor on the grounds that he had accused the
Law Society of racism. Four Law Society officials, known as the
Gang of Four, accused him of perjury, fraud, and treachery to the
laws of this country, and of having committed serious criminal offences,
accusations which these officials have been trying to cover up,
by series of conspiracies to defeat the ends of justice.
The basis of his allegations and the fact that the courts aided
and abetted the wrong doers, is published in a book called, “THE
MOST CORRUPT BRITISH JUDGES” (ISBN: 1 871694 05 1) which was
addressed to the Lord Chancellor of the UK, inviting him to either
bring charges of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute
or charge the judges for corruption and abuse of power. Lord Chancellor
refused to charge either him or the judges.
After the exhaustion of remedies, an application was made to the
ECtHR.
Decision: The ECtHR ignored all the evidence submitted and dismissed
the application in their letter 30 January 2003 without giving any
grounds. A request was made for reasons for the decision, under
Article 45. To date the ECtHR have not acknowledged nor responded
to the request; yet reasons for dismissal are a right guaranteed
by the Convention under Article 45.

The matter is being petitioned to the EU Parliament
as there are no other avenues left for human rights violations suffered
by the Applicant. The Application has been given the following Petition
No. 106/2003

BackgroundThis application arose as a result of all domestic remedies
in the UK having been exhausted. There had been an order and judgment
made on April 19th 2002, in the Supreme Court of Judicature, Court
of Appeal (Civil Division) on Appeal from the Portsmouth County
Court, before a High Court judge in the Court of Appeal. The order
and judgment were made following the application to appeal the order
and judgment made on January 22nd 2002 in the Portsmouth County
Court.

Since 1996, the applicant had been subjected to domestic
violence and abuse at the hands of his mentally ill wife. The children
were taken away from him. The court disregarded all of the medical
evidence (well documented), the facts of the case and the genuine
and serious concerns for the children’s welfare, and acted
against the interests of the children, failed to protect them from
the mother and failed to prevent the mother’s abuse of the
children from taking place, but acted to allow it to continue.

It is public record that the court has made reference
to hearings that have never taken place; introduced purported evidence;
ignored concerns for the children’s safety, accepted the mother’s
false unsubstantiated allegations without question and without evidence,
whilst condemning the father’s professional training in child
welfare.

The matter was referred to the ECtHR in 2003 alleging
that the UK courts had diverted from the true issue and had ignored
pertinent evidence. It was also alleged that relevant factors were
not taken into account and that the evidence had not been examined.
As a result of which serious harm had been caused to the health
and stability of the children and to the family life of the Applicant
and his children.

Decision: The ECtHR dismissed the application in their
letter 8th July 2003. A request was made for reasons for the decision,
under Article 45. To date the ECtHR have not acknowledged nor responded
to the request; yet reasons for dismissal are a right guaranteed
by the Convention under Article 45.

BackgroundSix years after the applicants established their business,
an illegal cellulose paint-spraying factory started to operate next
door to their home and business premises.

It was alleged that the emissions from this paint
spraying factory caused serious health damage and serious disruption
to the family life of the applicants and that the paint spraying
factory did not have the benefit of planning permission to operate.

An application was made to the ECtHR for the determination of the
civil rights of the applicants, who relied upon a determination
of the official documents relating to the planning application 88.1887.

We brought to the President of the Court’s attention
the serious mistakes in the facts of the case upon which the decision
had been based as there has never been planning permission for the
factory to operate either the processes they were using nor on the
premises they were operating in. We informed the Court that basis
of the application was relating to the officers abuse of their power
by purporting there was planning permission when there was none;
and not a matter of a negligence in the grant of planning permission
issue as had been imposed upon the applicants by the Court as there
had never been an application for planning permission made for the
operations being carried out, or for the building in which they
were taking place.

On the 5th July 2001 ECtHR dismissed all supporting
evidence that there was no planning permission and introduced the
concept of “flexi planning permission legislation” to
reach the decision that the development benefited from planning
permission Application No: 41671/98).

Subsequently it was pointed out that the Court could
not have taken all the documents into consideration (Application
No: 75341/01), on the 8th July 2003 ECtHR acknowledged that, contrary
to their decision of the 5th July 2001, the Applicants’ contention
that there is no planning permission granted to the past and present
industrial developments was correct. However this time the Court
reached another decision stating “even assuming that Unit
2 was not covered by the original planning permission given to Mr
Brennan, it could not be inferred that the Council acted otherwise
than under a bona fide mistake in respect of the planning situation
with respect to Unit 2”. Ignoring the fact that the Council
repeatedly changed its position on three occasions so as to divert
the issue before the nationals courts who were only too willing
to participate in the cover-up.

Decision: In its dismissal of the application, the
Court applied Article 6 stating “Article 6 of the Convention
guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any
rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed,
which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national
law and the national courts”

The Court also applied Article 19 of the Convention
stating “According to its established case-law, it is for
the domestic authorities and in particular the courts to establish
the facts of a case in the light of the arguments and evidence submitted
to them and the Court is not competent to deal with an application
alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by the domestic
courts”.

BackgroundThe applicant is a member of an organisation with over
170,000 members. It advertises itself as a member own organisation
under the Company’s Act 1985. In the Memorandum of Association
it states “Every member of the Federation undertakes to contribute
to the assets of the Federation…”

The Federation further for many years advertised “Join
the Federation and you get the following benefits free!” …….“Payment
of legal and accountancy costs up to £35,000.00 in dealing
with an in-depth Inland Revenue investigation and also other benefits”.
At no material time was it or has it been stated or written that
this promise was subject to any terms and conditions.

The applicant was subjected to Inland Revenue investigation
in 1996 and asked for assistance. The request was denied with the
accusation that the applicant had committed fraud. After spending
a considerable amount of his own money the applicant was proven
innocent and gained apology from the Inland Revenue. The applicant
returned to the organisation requesting reimbursement of the costs
he had paid out. The Federation’s refusal to provide the help
they had promised to refund expenses resulted in legal proceedings.
The organisation refused the request and informed the courts that
they were not the correct defendant and that the applicant should
sue the organisation’s contracted service provider, their
insurer, to recover the costs.

Upon appeal, the court of appeal stated “in
my judgement, for the District Judge to say that the extent of the
obligation is merely to introduce X (the Applicant) to an insurance
policy is wrong both in law and in fact”.

The matter was returned to lower court for quantum
but the lower court stated “An effort was made to strike out
your claim on the grounds that you’d sued the wrong party.
One judge said that was absolutely right. Another judge said, “Well,
I’m not going to strike the claim out, let the matter be heard.”
Now the matter has been heard and I’ve decided that the first
judge was right. And if you don’t like my judgment then you
must approach the Court of Appeal and ask them for leave to appeal.”

Following on from this legal action, the organisation
also removed all benefit and indemnity cover that is provided within
the membership package from the applicant, who remains to date a
fully paid up member of the organisation.

An application was made to ECtHR in 2002 in a civil
determination against the organisation for breach of contract. It
was alleged that there was breach of the rights guaranteed by the
Convention. It was also alleged that there was breach of EC Directive
84/450/EEC relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading
advertising, and also breach of EC Directive 93/13/EEC – on
unfair terms in consumer contracts

Decision: In the decision of ECtHR, it concluded that
despite the applicant paid his membership to the Organisation, his
contract is with the organisation’s contract service provider
ie the insurance company.

For this reason, ECtHR dismissed the claim that there
was breach of contract and/or breach of Community legislation EC
Directive 84/450/EEC and EC Directive 93/13/EC.

BackgroundIn civil determination proceedings, the applicant lost
in the court of appeal and petitioned to the House of Lords against
the Judgment given in the court of appeal. It is understood that
the petition application being an ex-parte application the respondent
is not invited to make any submission unless requested directly
by the court.

In this case, the House of Lords did not make any
request for submission from the respondent. Yet after the applicant
was refused leave from the House of Lords, the respondent without
notification to the applicant’s solicitor of costs, applied
directly to the House of Lords taxation officer for their costs.

The applicant’s solicitor states in his letter
“the taxation officer said that the bill was only about £2,000
which was minimal for anything in the House of Lords and consequently
it would be allowed in full. If I did not like the system of the
Respondent getting their costs before the House gave leave, then
I would have to complain elsewhere….”

Decision: Despite the application for costs was out of time for
taxation, and the costs claim was for a submission that was not
requested by the court, nor was the Respondent able to provide the
Applicant with a copy of the submission claimed to have been made
by the Respondent, the Court in its decision stated “it is
not for the Court to substitute its own decision for that reached
by the Taxing Officer who heard the views of both parties on the
costs issue.” setting an unprecedented authority by which
the Respondent can recover costs, against procedure, for a submission
claimed to have made in response to a Petition to the House of Lords.

DECEIT WITHIN THE COURT’S INTERPRETATION
OF THE CONVENTION

42. At the present time the Court’s interpretations
of ECHR are inconsistent, contradictory and not compatible with
the rights guaranteed by the Convention, nor are they compatible
with the rights guaranteed by the Charter; and are also in violation
of Articles 7, 8, and 10 of UDHR. Without safety measures being
introduced to the new reform protocol, the rights guaranteed by
the Convention and the Community Legislation are subject to abuse
without redress.

43. Documentary evidence to support the above allegations
is presented below.

44. In the letter dated 1st August 2002 the ECtHR
states “The Court, as the supervising judicial organ, is not
itself a party to the Convention.” i.e. the Court does not
have to give regard to the Convention in its deliberations.

45. We understand under the Convention, that an application
under Article 34 can be struck out only after it has been registered
with the Court’s list of cases. The Court then can give reasons
why it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the
application or why the application is made inadmissible under Articles
28 or 29. The Registrar as we understand matters, does not have
authority or remit to refuse applications under Article 34 unless
the applicants have failed to comply with the requirements set out
in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Rule 47. Under Rule 52 of the Court, the
application submitted by Applicants under Article 34 must therefore
be assigned to a Section by the President of the Court before being
registered. However it is a matter of public record that Applications
made under Article 34 of the Convention complying with the requirements
set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Rule 47, were dismissed without
being registered.

46. Furthermore Article 40 (1) of the Convention states
“Hearings shall be in public unless the Court in exceptional
circumstances decided otherwise.” but applicants do not have
any right to attend the Court’s hearings. The Court does not
inform applicants when the hearing is taking place. The hearing
is kept secret.

47. All applications regarding admissibility are dealt
with on the basis of “secret reports” produced by a
Rapporteur. No applicant has access to these “secret reports”.
Also the so called ‘facts’ of the case contained in
this “secret report” are not subject to challenge even
if the Court been informed that statements based upon false materials
which were introduced by the Rapporteur and the introduction of
these false materials constitute a serious violation of the individuals’
rights as guaranteed by the Convention.

48. Furthermore this Court procedure is not compatible
with Article 40 (2) of the Convention which states “Documents
deposited with the Registrar shall be accessible to the public unless
the President of the Court decides otherwise.” And Rule 17
(2) of the Court states “The Registrar shall have the custody
of the archives of the Court and shall be the channel for all communications
and notifications made by, or addressed to, the Court in connection
with the cases brought or to be brought before it.” Surely
these communications and notifications would include the instructions
from the Court and the Rapporteur’s secret report to be challenged
not hidden or restricted.

49. Rule 49 of the Court states “Where a case
is considered by a Chamber pursuant to Article 29 §1 of the
Convention, the report of the Judge Rapporteur shall contain (a)
a statement of the relevant facts, including any information obtained
under paragraph 2 of this Rule; (b) an indication of the issues
arising under the Convention in the application; and (c) a proposal
on admissibility and on any other action to be taken, together,
if need be, with a provisional opinion on the merits.”

50. It is important to note that Rule 49 (a) specifies
that the report contain a statement of the relevant facts of the
case. It does not authorise the Rapporteur to introduce statement
of false materials as facts of the case. However, when the Court
has been informed that statements in the Rapporteur’s secret
report based upon false materials which were introduced by the Rapporteur
himself and that the introduction of these false materials constitute
a serious violation of the individuals’ rights as guaranteed
by the Convention, instead of investigating the matter the Court’s
response was to automatically dismiss the application. Furthermore
the Rapporteur’s report appears to decide the admissibility
of application rather than being just a proposal on admissibility.

51. Rules 80 and 81 give the provision for the request
for revision of a judgment and rectification of error in decisions
and judgements, stating “Without prejudice to the provisions
on revision of judgments and on restoration to the list of applications,
the Court may, of its own motion or at the request of a party made
within one month of the delivery of a decision or a judgment, rectify
clerical errors, errors in calculation or obvious mistakes.”
Despite these provisions such right has often, by the Court’s
own records, been seen to have been denied to applicants by the
Court without any reasons given. Even in cases where it is clear
and obvious that the ‘facts of case’ are inaccurate
and false there is no right of appeal to the Court or to anyone
else.

52. Article 19 of the Convention states “to
ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High
Contracting parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto,
there shall be set a European Court of Human Rights, hereinafter
referred to as “the Court”.

53. In its interpretation of Article 19 of the Convention,
the Court has stated “The Commission recalls that, in accordance
with Article 19 (art.19) of the Convention, its only task is to
ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties
in the Convention. In particular, it is not competent to deal with
an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed
by domestic courts.” Even, it would seem, when such errors
are on public record and are in violation of rights guaranteed by
the Convention.

54. In its interpretation of Article 19 of the Convention,
the Court has further stated “According to its established
case-law, it is for the domestic authorities and in particular the
courts to establish the facts of a case in the light of the arguments
and evidence submitted to them and the Court is not competent to
deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have
been committed by the domestic courts”.

55. The ECtHR has also stated “In any event,
and as stated earlier, it is not for the Court to establish the
facts or to conclude that, in so far as the facts have been established,
that the domestic courts erred in their approach or their assumptions”

56. Article 6 (1) of the Convention states “In
the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any
criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and
public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial
tribunal established by law.”

57. However according to the Court’s interpretation
“Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair
hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of
evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily
matters for regulation by national law and the national courts”.

58. Below is a summary of how the Court in its decisions
has interpreted Articles 1 Protocol 1, Articles 6, 13, 14, 17, 19,
34, 53, Rule 49, Rules 80 and 81 in a manner that is not compatible
with the rights guaranteed by the Convention.

59. Article 1 Protocol 1 states “Every natural
or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.”
However such rights can be seen to have been removed from EU Citizens
by the Court, through the abuse of power by officials of Member
States.

60. Article 6 states “In the determination of
his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against
him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a
reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established
by law.” However in the fight for the determination of a victim’s
civil rights any allegation regarding the lack of independence and
impartiality of the courts of Member States will be dismissed, because
“Article 6 of the Convention does not lay down any rules on
the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed,
which are primarily matters for regulation by national law and the
national courts” and that “it is not for the Court to
establish the facts or to conclude that, in so far as the facts
have been established, that the domestic courts erred in their approach
or their assumptions.”

61. Article 8 states “There shall be no interference
by a public authority with the exercise of this right…”
Yet it is a matter of record that when such interference occurs
as a result of officers of a public authority acting in abuse of
their power and also making fraudulent affidavit, the Court has
granted blanket immunity.

62. Article 13 states “Everyone whose rights
and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall
have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding
that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official
capacity.” Provision for effective remedy against abuse of
power by persons acting in an official capacity as Local government
officers and members of the judiciary was removed within UK Human
Rights Act. Neither have we seen any such effective remedy made
available to EU citizens when their rights as guaranteed by the
Convention are violated. The inaccessibility of the “secret
report” and lack of opportunity to challenge it by definition
and by its very existence denies confidence in effective remedy,
as afforded by the Convention, by the Court.

63. Article 14 states “The enjoyment of the
rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured
without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or
other status.” Cases can be shown to demonstrate that there
has been serious racial discrimination by Member States and that
the Court has reinforced such discrimination. The action of the
Court also shows no regard to the EC Directive 2000/43/EC. The Court
also shows no regard to violations of rights protected by the Convention
and the Charter.

64. Article 17 states “Nothing in this Convention
may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any
right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the
destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or
at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in
the Convention.” However, as in many of the cases we have
seen, this provision does not prevent the Court itself from abusing
its power, resulting in the destruction of the rights protected
by the Convention; including denial of the right of individuals
claiming to be victim of violation, by one of the High Contracting
Parties, of the rights set forth in the Convention or the protocols
to make application under Article 34.

65. Article 40 states “Hearings shall be in
public unless the Court in exceptional circumstances decides otherwise,
and documents deposited with the Registrar shall be accessible to
the public unless the President of the Court decides otherwise.”
However, the Court violates Article 40 by denying the right for
applicants to attend hearings and giving them no access to documents
deposited with the Registrar, especially the Court’s instructions
and the reports written by the Rapporteur appointed by the Court.

66. Article 45 states “Reasons shall be given
for judgments as well as for decisions declaring applications admissible
or inadmissible.” The Court in many instances has repeatedly
violated Article 45, refusing to give reasons for a decision despite
being requested to do so.

67. It is important for the members of the Committee
and Parliament to note that the filtering system currently proposed
and adopted by ECtHR, and which it is declared to be intended to
filter out duplicated and hopeless cases, is in fact acting as a
mechanism discriminating against most EU Citizens and furthermore
gives an impression of transparency of justice when in fact it is
not; leaving those EU Citizens who are victims of judicial corruption
and abuse to face double punishment.

68. All the above are supported by documented evidence
supporting the allegations and comments made in this petition. Copies
are available if required.

CONTRADICTORY AND INCONSISTENT INTERPRETATIONS
OF THE ECHR BY ECtHR

69. It is important for the members of the Committee
and Parliament to note that:-

Statute of the Council of Europe London, 5.V.1949
Article 8 states: -

“Any member of the Council of Europe which has
seriously violated Article 3 may be suspended from its rights of
representation and requested by the Committee of Ministers to withdraw
under Article 7. If such member does not comply with this request,
the Committee may decide that it has ceased to be a member of the
Council as from such date as the Committee may determine.”

Article 3 of the Statute states: -

“Every member of the Council of Europe must
accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by
all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation
of the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter I.”

And Chapter I of the Statute states: -

“This aim shall be pursued through the Organs
of the Council by discussion of questions of common concern and
by agreements and common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific,
legal and administrative matters and in the maintenance and further
realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

Article 15 of the Statute states: -

“On the recommendation of the Consultative Assembly
or on its own initiative, the Committee of Ministers shall consider
the action required to further the aim of the Council of Europe,
including the conclusion of conventions or agreements and the adoption
by governments of a common policy with regard to particular matters.”

Article 41 of the Statute states

“Proposals for the amendment of this Statute
may be made in the Committee of Ministers or, in the conditions
provided for in Article 23, in the Consultative Assembly.

The Committee shall recommend and cause to be embodied
in a protocol those amendments which it considers to be desirable.”

70. From the above, Committee of Ministers can request
to have the rights of representation of a Member State withdrawn
under Article 7 on the occasion that these Member States have seriously
violated Article 3 of the Statute relating “to the enjoyment
by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental
freedoms; furthermore Chapter 1 of the Statute permits the organs
of the Council by discussion of questions of common concern and
by agreements and common action in the maintenance and further realisation
of human rights and fundamental freedoms”, and under Article
10 the Committee of Ministers is the organ of the Council. It is
therefore understood that the human rights and fundamental freedoms
mentioned in Article 3 of the Statute are the same rights and freedoms
defined in Section I of the Convention.

71. However Article 47 of the Convention states: -

“The Court may, at the request of the Committee
of Ministers, give advisory opinions on legal questions concerning
the interpretation of the Convention and the protocols thereto.

Such opinions shall not deal with any question relating
to the content or scope of the rights or freedoms defined in Section
I of the Convention and the protocols thereto, or with any other
question which the Court or the Committee of Ministers might have
to consider in consequence of any such proceedings as could be instituted
in accordance with the Convention.”

72. In seeking advisory opinions, the Committee of
Ministers is prohibited to raise any question relating to the content
or scope of the rights or freedoms defined in Section I of the Convention.
This means the Committee of Ministers can raise questions relating
to the content or scope of the rights or freedoms defined in Section
I of the Convention against other Member States but have no power
to question the Court’s decisions.

73. And yet Article 15 permits the Committee of Ministers
to consider actions required to further the aims of the Council
of Europe, including the conclusion of conventions or agreements
and the adoption by governments of a common policy with regard to
particular matters. i.e. Article 15 empowers the Committee of Ministers
to overturn the restrictions imposed in Article 47.

74. Furthermore Article 46(1) of the Convention states:
-

“The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted
to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.”

75. This raises the question how the Committee of
Ministers can supervise the final judgments of the Court when they
do not have the power to raise any questions relating to the scope
of rights and freedoms of the Section I of the Convention, concerning
the interpretation of the Convention in the judgment. Even in incidents
where the decision of the Court is fraudulent and not compatible
with the rights guaranteed by the Convention. Does this mean that
the Committee of Ministers have to do what the Court tells them
to do and they have no right to question the Court’s integrity
or honesty in its interpretation of the Convention rights. The Committee
of Ministers only having the right to criticise the Convention rights
within Member States’ jurisdiction.

76. Because there is no provision for appeal, nor
provision for safeguarding the rights the Convention guarantees,
the Court can act above the law and create precedents not compatible
with the Convention as demonstrated above. This is because there
are no provisions similar to those in the ICC to investigate the
misbehaviour of officials and judges nor is there an Ombudsman to
investigate any complaint of irregularity and impropriety of the
Institutions, as is available within the EU, to safeguard the rights
Community legislation provides to EU citizens.

ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD WITHIN ECHR

77. Unlike the administrative procedures of EU, members
of the institutions within the COE do not have to acknowledge or
respond to queries, complaints or malfunctions brought to their
attention.

78. Article 24 of the Convention states: -

“No judge may be dismissed from his office unless
the other judges decide by a majority of two-thirds that he has
ceased to fulfil the required conditions.”

79. So although there is some implied protocol for
the dismissal of corrupt or inept judges there are actually no provisions
made for the instigation of such action against incompetent judges.
Application concerning the issue of questioning judges on the issue
of judicial administrative incompetence was made but only elicited
the following response from the Court

“it is not possible under the Convention to
cite these bodies (COE and ECtHR) as respondents in a case. Your
complaint would accordingly be considered incompatible with the
Convention and thus inadmissible.”

80. Article 19 of the Statute of Paris, 2.IX.1949
states: -

“Privileges and immunities are granted to officials
in the interests of the Council of Europe and not for the personal
benefit of the individuals themselves. The Secretary General shall
have the right and the duty to waive the immunity of any official
in any case where, in his opinion, the immunity would impede the
course of justice and can be waived without prejudice to the interests
of the Council of Europe. In the case of the Secretary General and
of the Deputy Secretary General, the Committee of Ministers shall
have the right to waive immunity.”

81. With this in mind in our submission dated 20 August
2002 to the Secretary General we requested that the Secretary General
waive the immunity of the Court Rapporteur and the Court Registrar
for abuse of their power and their violation of the rights the Convention
afforded to EU citizens. There has been no response or comment to
date despite reminders having also been sent.

82. From our experiences the situation as it stands
is that although Article 19 of the Statute gives the Committee of
Ministers the right to waive immunity in the case of the Secretary
General, Article 47 of the Convention prevents the Committee of
Ministers from seeking advisory opinion to take any action against
the Secretary General and there is no provision within the Convention
to hold the Secretary General accountable for either lack of response
or any other maladministration or breach of his remit, or failure
to fulfil his duties.

83. Other submissions we have made and to which we
have received inadequate or no response are as follows.

19/02/2002 Letter to Secretary General regarding the
irregularity and impropriety of the UK Administrative office within
ECtHR. (No response)

19/02/2002 Letter to Secretary General regarding the
introduction of Provisions into ECHR to preserve the essence of
Human Rights Conventions. (No response)

19/02/2002 Letter to Commissioner for Human Rights
regarding the introduction of Provisions into ECHR to preserve the
essence of Human Rights Conventions. (No response)

27/09/2002 Letter to DG of Legal Affairs Committee
of Experts on the Efficiency of Justice regarding Abuse of Court’s
(ECtHR) Power. (No response)

10/12/2002 Letter to Secretary General regarding irregularity
and impropriety of the UK Administrative office within ECtHR. (No
response)

09/06/2003 Letter to Steering Committee for Human
Rights (CDDH) regarding Reform of the European Court of Human Rights.
(No response)

15/08/2003 Letter to all members of Parliamentary
Assembly regarding irregularity and impropriety within ECtHR and
the interpretation of Article 6 and Article 19 of the Convention
by the Court is not compatible with the right guarantee by the Convention.

15/08/2003 Letter to all Members of Committee of Ministers
regarding the interpretation of Article 6 and Article 19 of the
Convention by the Court is not compatible with the right guarantee
by the Convention. The letter was also referred to the Steering
Committee of Human Rights (CDDH) by members of Committee of Ministers.

18/08/2003 Letter to all MEP regarding the fraud within
ECtHR and the danger of EC/EU accession to ECHR.

16/09/2003 Letter to all Members of Human Rights Committee
of COE regarding ECHR-Reform protocol.

23/09/2003 Letter to Members of Political Affairs
Committee regarding work together to build a just and equitable
ECHR based on the Rule of Law. (No response)

23/09/2003 Letter to Mme Lili Nabholz-Haidegger Member
of Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Vice-Chairperson:
Sub-Committee on Human Rights regarding the Ombudsman role, asking
her to extend her recommendations and remit in her report to establish
Ombudsman institution within COE. (No response)

84. We have also received communications from members
of Human Rights Committee confirming that our letters to them sent
through the Parliamentary Assembly do not seem to have been forwarded
to their attention.

85. Surely it would be detrimental to the cause of
justice for the EC/EU to accede to a Court belonging to an intergovernmental
organisation COE which can only lose credibility unless matters
are put right so as to prevent further removal of human rights from
EU citizens.

WHY EC/EU CANNOT ACCEDE TO ECHR WITHOUT SAFEGUARDS

86. As stated earlier it is important for the members
of the Committee and Parliament to acknowledge the flaws within
the present interpretation of the Convention by their Court particularly
of Article 6: -

“Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the
right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility
of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore
primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national
courts”

87. And Article 19

“According to its established case-law, it is
for the domestic authorities and in particular the courts to establish
the facts of a case in the light of the arguments and evidence submitted
to them and the Court is not competent to deal with an application
alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by the domestic
courts” even in issues in which the officers of local authority
have purported to carry out their statutory duty and function and
made fraudulent statements in their Affidavits to the courts.

88. Acceding to the ECHR when the Court acts in the
manner we have demonstrated above would be a retrograde step in
the path to justice and human rights for all citizens, serving only
to benefit those few who have access to certain privileged legal
representation. As documents support these privileged legal representatives
have the power to influence the courts of the Member States to ignore
true evidence, to adopt fraudulent affidavits and not to follow
the rule of law, established case law and national legislation;
and there is no redress against this behaviour, which by its own
actions the ECtHR seems to guarantee.

89. The records further show that the ECtHR in dealing
with applications has permitted the Member State to act in serious
breach of EU treaties, regulations, decision and directives with
impunity, and with no redress available to EU citizens.

90. The precedents that may be being set by the ECtHR
in the case law on Article 6 and Article 19 will ensure that the
EU will not be able to take measures against Member States which
have infringed the principles laid down in Article 6 EUT, under
Article 7 EUT and similarly under Articles 236(2) 309(2)) ECT because
the interpretations of the Convention give Member States the right
to adopt whatever evidence they wish to support their actions; with
this evidence not subject to challenge.

91. Furthermore these actions of the ECtHR are incompatible
with Articles 7, 8, and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which formed the basis of the COE considerations in the
creation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms in 1950.

92. It is important to note that if EU/EC accedes to the ECHR as
things stand at the moment, and if no safety measures are to be
introduced to the reform protocols then all avenues for redress
for EU citizens will be tempered and lessened and will be only available
at the discretion (whim and fancy) of the Court and not guaranteed
as a right of EU citizens anymore.

POSSIBILITY OF REMEDY AVAILABLE TO INDIVIDUAL
COMPLAINANTS OUTSIDE THEIR MEMBER STATES

93. Although under Article 34

“the Court may receive applications from any
persons claiming to be the victims of violation by one of the High
Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the convention or
the protocols thereto.” In practice this is not true, as the
right to this has been denied to many applicants.

94. When it is alleged that a Member State has abused
its power, there is no remedy within the ECtHR because Article 19
is being interpreted by the Court as being: -

“According to its established case-law, it is
for the domestic authorities and in particular the courts to establish
the facts of a case in the light of the arguments and evidence submitted
to them and the Court (ECHR) is not competent to deal with an application
alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by the domestic
courts” Even in issues in which the officers of local authority
can be proven to have purported to carry out their statutory duty
and function and made fraudulent statements in their Affidavits
to the courts.

95. Although in accordance with Rule 49 of the Court,
the report by the Judge Rapporteur shall contain a statement of
the relevant facts, however the accuracy of these relevant facts
of the case is unknown as the report is confidential and is not
available to any applicants. Therefore any errors in the facts of
case and/or law cannot be identified or corrected and put right.

96. At least in the EU there is an Ombudsman and the
Petitions Committee before which grievances and injustices can be
aired.

97. Should the EU accede to the ECHR under the recent
proposals the only remedy that would remain available to individual
complainants in UK via the International courts – would be
via UN 1503 procedure; which is not satisfactory because the UK
conveniently has not signed the Optional Protocol and therefore
is not accountable.

DIFFICULTIES THAT WILL OCCUR IN OBTAINING
REDRESS IF EU ACCEDES TO THE ECHR

98. The interpretation of Article 6 by the Court states:
-

“Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the
right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility
of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore
primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national
courts”

99. Furthermore the Court applies Article 19 of the
Convention as: -

“According to its established case-law, it is
for the domestic authorities and in particular the courts to establish
the facts of a case in the light of the arguments and evidence submitted
to them and the Court (ECHR) is not competent to deal with an application
alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by the domestic
courts” Even in issues in which the officers of local authority
have purported to carry out their statutory duty and function and
made fraudulent statements in their Affidavits to the courts.

100. Once EU/EC accedes to ECHR, the above interpretation
will apply equally to Community Legislation and the Charter.

101. This means a Member State can adopt any evidence
it wishes, no matter how unreasonable, in the interpretation and
application of Community Legislation. Community Legislation will
no longer be there to protect the rights afforded by the Charter.

102. It is important for the members of the Committee
and Parliament to acknowledge that many applications are made to
ECtHR because the applicants dispute the “truth” of
the evidence the courts of the Member State adopt in their decisions
and judgements. Similarly applications are made to EU because of
dispute over the interpretation of Community Legislation by the
Member States.

103. It is a matter of record that in the UK there
has been an increase in the number of cases going on to Europe and
in which it is abundantly clear that abuse of court power by the
judiciary can be established. Too often resulting in members of
the general public and their families suffering; - from permanent
health damage, losing their homes, their businesses, have their
property stolen by the authorities and the courts, falsely being
made bankrupt by the courts and owners falsely evicted from their
properties. Strong evidence shows that courts are guilty of the
following: -

- Making decisions based on documents that do not
exist;

- Diverting the basis of applications;

- Refusing to record court proceedings;

- Falsely imprisoning innocent victims; and

- Allowing fathers to be falsely accused by their
partners based on fraudulent evidence.

104. Often the court transcripts bear no resemblance
to the actual tape recordings of the proceedings, as much as the
judgments bear no resemblance to the submitted facts of the cases.
A further insult and impropriety is that the courts accept affidavits
from officers of the government even when they are known to be fraudulent.
When perjury by the lawyers involved is brought to the courts’
attention, the courts ignore this. It is also common practise that
litigants are denied the access to court files on their cases and
where it is possible to see them, a range of falsehoods and fraudulent
documents are found in these files – again the judges refuse
to examine these matters when they are brought to their attention.
The issues concerning the bias and corruption within the UK courts
are endless.

105. To support our allegations in this communication
we enclose summaries of a small cross-section of cases we have at
hand exemplifying the extent and range of the suffering of victims
of judiciary abuses. (Appendix 4 - ELC Report dated 21st February
2003 – The Jigsaw of Abuse and Corruption) However, if the
Committee so requires, we are able to submit detailed reports of
these and other abuses that have occurred through out the country.

106. It can be seen that many of the above cases are
concerned with the interpretation of Community Legislation, and
that also there has been a breach of EC Directives, Regulations,
and Articles of Treaty with no redress available to the citizens
involved.

107. If the EC/EU accedes to the ECHR, it will be
possible for established case law of the Convention to be used or
rather misused to prevent any redress that could have been possible,
because it allows Member States to select and adopt evidence as
they please with no right of appeal, even though the evidence be
false and thus the decision reached based upon it is obtained by
fraud and is in breach of rights guaranteed by the Convention as
the Court has stated “it is not competent to deal with an
application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed
by the domestic courts”

108. This will also have detrimental effects in the
interpretation of Community Legislation in particular the following
EC Directives which ECtHR have on record assisted and supported
in the member states breach of: -

(i) 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 Relating to the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
of the Member States concerning misleading advertising

(ii) 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 – on unfair
terms in consumer contracts

(iii) 95/46/EC - on the protection of individuals
with regard to the processing personal data

(iv) 96/62/EC – On ambient air quality assessment
and management

(v) 85/337/EEC – on the assessment of the effects
of certain public and private projects on the environment

(vi) 90/313/EEC - Freedom of Access to Environmental
Information

RECENT TRENDS IN HISTORY OF THE ECHR

109. We understand that the UK was actively involved
in an advisory role to the reform of the control mechanisms of the
European Court of Human Rights in 1992 , resulting in the context
of 1994 Protocol 11 of the Convention , bearing a close resemblance
to the control mechanisms employed by the British judiciary.

110. As a result applicants can no longer be guaranteed
that all details of the submission they make will be presented to
the Court for consideration. Applicants can no longer be sure of
the facts of their cases being accurately submitted within the Rapporteur’s
secret report, to which even the applicant has no access, thus breaking
the basic human right – right to fair trial guaranteed under
the Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 10 of UDHR, Article 47 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 2 of ICCPR 1966 and Article
5 of ICESCR.

111. Article 17 of the Convention clearly prohibits
the abuse of rights. When the applicants are no longer allowed to
attend the Court, to challenge these secret reports, this begs the
question , what is the difference between trials held in camera
under a dictatorship and the ECtHR. In effect, the Court of Human
Rights is denying the basic right, which is also a Customary Right’
i.e. the Right to a Fair Hearing.

112. The denial of Fair Hearing practised by the European
Court of Human Rights, coupled with the inaccessibility of the Rapporteur’s
secret report suggests the ECtHR is acting with a lack of independence
and impartiality. It is indefensible when a Court exceeds its jurisdiction
and acts against its own rules. The Court, as the supervising judicial
organ, is not itself a party to the Convention – This does
not inspire public confidence. When the Court informs applicants
“This decision is final and is not subject to any appeal either
to the Court or to any other body.” This lack of provision
for appeal violates Article 13 of ECHR, Article 8 of UDHR, Article
4 of ICESCR, Article 2 of ICCPR and Article 47 of Charter of Fundamental
Rights.

113. In 2001 the ECtHR adopted “flexi-planning
permission legislation and justice” This Decision went against
the established case law of Lopez-Ostra v. Spain 1994 and included
the changing of the submitted facts of the case within the Rapporteur's
secret report to the Court; A report which the applicant was denied
access to or any opportunity to refute.

114. According to Council of Europe’s own figures
between 1 July and 31 October 2001 the Court dealt with 3,868 cases.
Of these only 5% were declared admissible. The ECtHR accepts that
applications to ECtHR are dismissed at the admissibility stage,
based on a secret report produced by the Rapporteur to the Court.
A report that even the applicant has no right whatsoever to see
and which breaches the Convention Articles 6, 14 and 17 and 40.
Without the applicants having access to these secret reports, it
would be further violation of Human Rights and denial of fair hearing
if the Court is to establish a separate “filtering”
mechanism to deal with the so called unmeritorious and repetitive
or “clone” cases when in fact these cases are not unmeritorious
and repetitive or “clone” cases, but are only continuing
because to date there has been no fair hearing of the true issues
of the case.

115. Even without the proposed amended protocol, the
Court at this time, in breach of Rules of the Court, delegates the
admissibility task to a single Rapporteur appointed by the Court
whilst Article 28 and Article 29 of the Convention clearly state
the admissibility of application is to be determined by either the
Committee or the Chamber.

EU COMMITMENT TO HUMAN RIGHTS

116. Prior to the 58th session of the UN Commission
on Human Rights (CHR), the Council examined the action of the European
Union in that forum, considered as a major element of EU policy
in the defence and protection of human rights. It reaffirmed the
Union's commitment to the principles of liberty, democracy, respect
for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, stressing
the importance of the EU guidelines on human rights dialogue adopted
in December 2001 and the permanent duty of all States to protect
and promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and humanitarian
law in compliance with the relevant international law. Adopted on
11 March 2002.

117. The European Parliament is on record stating
it attaches great importance to the protection of human rights both
inside and outside the Union, and uses its power of assent as one
way of promoting respect for fundamental rights. One of the EU’s
objectives is said to be to provide its citizens with ‘a high
level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice’,
the European Parliament attaching great importance to the fulfilment
of this goal.

118. The Treaty of Amsterdam gives a central role
to freedom and human and fundamental rights, ‘the Union is
founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human
rights and fundament freedoms, and the rule of law’. It would
not make sense for EU to accede to ECHR, the convention of an intergovernmental
organisation in which these principles are ‘seriously and
persistently’ breached by its own Court.

119. The core purpose of this petition is to bring to the attention
and raise the awareness of the Commission to the extent of corruption
within the ECtHR judiciary, and the lack of respect for Community
Legislation and the human rights of citizens of EU. Which if acceded
to without precaution, can only bring justice into disrepute and
lessen the credibility of the EU as is already happening in the
UK. All people residing in the Union's territory acknowledge that
respect for human rights is meaningful only in a secure environment,
firmly rooted in an effective judicial system.

120. It is important to note that on 5-7 February
2003 at its first meeting since it was set up in September 2002,
the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) of
Council of Europe undertook to look into the functioning of the
different judicial systems on the basis of the problems experienced
by European citizens. We placed a submission before the Commission
which was ignored; we did not even receive an acknowledgement never
mind a comment.

121. The CEPEJ also supply opinions upon request by
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the European
Court of Human Rights, the appropriate Committees of the Council
of Europe, in particular the European Committee on Legal Co-operation
(CDCJ), the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC), the Steering
Committee on Human Rights (CDDH) and the Consultative Council of
European Judges (CCJE) and the Secretary General.

122. We similarly raised the problem of irregularity and impropriety
within ECtHR and the flaws within the interpretation of the Convention
to the notice of those bodies mentioned above. Again we received
no acknowledge or comments.

123. The EU should include the reform of the judicial
system and the lack of independence of the judiciary, and the introduction
of initiatives to foster more transparency in the ECtHR, as the
corruption of power is a serious problem, and leads to many breaches
of the Articles of EU Treaty.

124. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) recognised
the existence of fundamental rights at community level at an early
stage, and has steadily extended them. Under the Court’s continuing
case-law, fundamental rights form part of the general principles
of Community law and are accepted as equivalent to primary law in
the Community legal hierarchy.

125. The source of recognition of these general legal
principles being Article 6 (2) (F.2) of the EU Treaty, which commits
the EU to respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
of 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions
common to the Member States, as general principles of Community
law. The Court of Justice has reaffirmed this EU obligation several
times.

126. Article 6 TEU states that the Union is founded
on the principles that include respect for human rights, to enforce
which Article 7 TEU and similarly Articles 236(2) 309(2)) ECT enable
the Council to take measures against Member States which have infringed
the principles laid down in Article 6 TEU.

127. The EU accession to the ECHR as currently proposed
will make this measure no longer available, as while this principle
has never been infringed on paper, the ECtHR in a recent decision
has already taken it upon itself to give the power to a Member State
to adopt whatever evidence it wishes to. Thus while never infringing
the principle on paper, in practice granting the ability to create
facts of case.

128. As a democratically elected Community Institution,
Parliament has recognised that it has a duty to see that fundamental
rights and freedoms are protected and upheld. It is understood that
Parliament has repeatedly adopted resolutions on respect for human
rights in the European Union. It has stressed the need not only
to safeguard credibility in the eyes of the outside world, by including
a clause requiring respect for human rights in cooperation agreements
with third countries, yet it itself is prepared to accede to the
ECHR; which in the present judicial climate cannot ensure respect
of the very basic requirements of respect for human rights –
the right for a fair hearing and effective remedy.

129. The Charter covers rights in areas of human rights
and the right to justice, as guaranteed by the European Convention
of Human Rights adopted by the Council of Europe. Under the principle
of universality, these rights should be conferred on all people,
regardless of their nationality or place of residence.

130. In principle, the Charter represents ‘established
law’, i.e. it gathers together in one document the fundamental
rights recognised by the Community Treaties, the Member States’
common constitutional principles, the European Convention of Human
Rights and the EU and Council of Europe Social Charters.

131. It establishes clearly that it aims only to protect
the fundamental rights of individuals with regard to action undertaken
by the EU Institutions and by Member States in application of the
EU Treaties and EC Treaties. By acceding to the ECHR at the present
time, this protection will be diminished by the ECtHR’s interpretation
and case law regarding Article 6 and Article 19.

132. According to Resolution of 21 November 1991,
Parliament has always wanted to endow the institution of Union citizenship
with comprehensive rights. It advocated the determination of Union
citizenship on an autonomous Community basis, so that citizens would
have an independent status. In addition, from the start it advocated
the incorporation of fundamental and human rights into primary law
and called for EU citizens to be entitled to bring proceedings before
the Court when these rights were violated by EU Institutions or
a Member State. The very rights which can be seen to be being taken
away by the ECtHR.

133. Special instruments adopted in the area of fraud
and corruption in the EU took the form of a 1997 Convention on combating
corruption involving civil servants of the European Communities
or the EU Member States. The ECtHR does not have any of these instruments.
In fact the ECtHR in the reform of protocol ensures such instruments
do not exist, despite being reminded of the necessity for protection,
the Court by its own actions encourages such abuse of power by civil
servants.

134. The European Parliament has stated that it considers
that the Union’s objective should be to simplify the recourse
to justice for citizens and companies and to make justice more effective
in an integrated European area, particularly by encouraging the
mergence of a common judicial culture. It also thinks the recognition
and enforcement of judgments should be a practically automatic process
between Member States and that there is therefore an urgent need
to encourage the compatibility of legal rules and proceedings. Accession
to the ECHR will certainly complicate the matter.

135. It is also important to note the Contribution
from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr. Walter
Schwimmer to the EU “800 MILLION EUROPEANS Involving the Greater
Europe in responding to key Laeken questions” - The purpose
of this memorandum is to propose to the members of the Convention
at an early stage of their work ways in which the Council of Europe
can contribute to addressing certain key questions in the Laeken
Declaration: -

“by the accession of the EC/EU to the European
Convention on Human Rights as part of a coherent approach to the
effective protection of human rights in Europe”

136. The Council of Europe is the home of Europe’s
main human rights conventions, the European Convention on Human
Rights being the prime example. Its rights and freedoms are common
to all European states and its international control mechanism offers
protection for 800 Million Europeans.

137. Though all of the above may be true, unfortunately
the established case law and the interpretation of Articles of the
Convention by the ECtHR do not inspire any confidence that it will
afford citizens such protection as the rights guarantee.

138. Although it has been put forward that The European
Union Convention is an opportunity to reinforce legally binding
mechanisms for the protection of human rights within the European
Union and that the objective of strengthening the safeguard of these
rights both within the European Union and in Europe as a whole,
can only be achieved through the accession of the European Union/European
Community to the European Convention of Human Rights, which would
create a single legal mechanism applying in equal manner to all
state and other authorities in Europe which are exercising the competence
affecting the rights protected by the Convention. ; it is now questionable
however, in light of the evidence submitted here before the Committee
and the Parliament, whether the ECHR is adequate to guarantee fair
hearing and effective remedy and independent and impartiality of
the judiciary particularly when there is no right of appeal, the
ECtHR is not a party to the Convention and judges and registrars
are not made accountable and decisions are made based on the secret
report of the Rapporteur presented to the Court.

139. On the basis of the mandate (doc. CONV 72/02),
the Working group II “Incorporation of the Charter/ accession
to the ECHR” has, in the course of its seven meetings and
having held hearings with several legal experts , examined two main
complementary issues: -

- The modalities and consequences of possible incorporation
of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties;

- The modalities and consequences of possible accession
of the Community / the Union to the European Convention on Human
Rights

140. It is important for the European Parliament to
give consideration to the Discussion paper “Modalities and
consequences of incorporation into the Treaties of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights and accession of the Community/Union to the ECHR”
which states: -

“For some 30 years the case-law of the Court
of Justice has acknowledged that fundamental rights form part of
Community law as general principles of this law . In the absence
of a written catalogue specific to the Union, the Court has derived
the content of these laws through case-law, taking as a basis various
sources, especially the constitutional traditions common to the
Member States and the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), which has been ratified
by all the Member States. For several years, the Court of Justice
has noted that the ECHR has “special significance” in
this respect, and refers explicitly to the case-law of the European
Court of Human Rights . It has also stated that not only the institutions
of the Union but also the States, where they act within the scope
of Community law, are required to respect fundamental rights under
the supervision of the Court .”

141. There is no doubt that the ECtHR has done, and
will continue to do excellent work but now unfortunately the competence
and integrity of the ECtHR is questionable for the reasons discussed
above. Furthermore according to Mr Marc Fischbach, Judge at the
European Court of Human Rights, speaking in a personal capacity
, responding to questions put by Group members, Mr Fischbach made,
inter alia, the following comments: -

Mr Fischbach felt that EC/EU accession to the ECHR
would not affect the autonomy of Union law. The European Court's
remit was confined to giving rulings on compliance with obligations
arising from the ECHR. The Court did not interpret the national
law of the contracting States; neither, therefore, would it intervene
in the interpretation of Union law, for which the Court of Justice
would remain the supreme arbiter.

142. Unfortunate rulings on compliance with objections
arising from the ECHR are a matter of discretion of the Court and
the secret report by the Rapporteur. The Court has demonstrated
that “the Court is not competent to deal with an application
alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by the domestic
courts” even in issues in which the officers of local authority
have purported to carry out their statutory duty and function and
made fraudulent statements in their Affidavits to the courts.

143. EU accession to ECHR will make matters worse.

144. In accordance to EU statement, The Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union has to be seen in the wider
context of the EU's long lasting commitment to human rights and
fundamental freedoms and of its policy in the areas of Justice and
Home Affairs. The European Union has always stated its commitment
to human rights and fundamental freedoms and has explicitly confirmed
the EU's attachment to fundamental social rights. The Amsterdam
Treaty, which came into force on 1 May 1999, has established procedures
intended to secure their protection: -
• It established, as a general principle, that the European
Union should respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, upon
which the Union is founded (Art 6 TEU)
• The Union can suspend certain rights of a Member State deriving
from the application of the Treaty, if it has determined the existence
of a serious and persistent breach of these principles by that Member
State. (Art 7 TEU)
• Candidate countries will have to respect these principles
to join the Union (Art 49 TEU)
• It has also given the European Court of Justice the power
to ensure respect of fundamental rights and freedoms by the European
institutions (Art 46 TEU)
145. The fundamental rights in the treaty on the European Union:
-
Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union states: -

1. The Union is founded on the principles of liberty,
democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and
the rule of law, principles that are common to the Member States.

2. The Union shall respect fundamental rights as
guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950
and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to
the Member States, as general principles of Community law.

146. However EC/EU accession to the ECHR will facilitate
courts of Member States to do whatever they want; even if by their
actions they seriously violate human rights and act in a manner
not compatible with the principles of EU as supported by case law
and interpretation of Article19 of the Convention since the ECtHR
is already on record as stating the Court is not competent to deal
with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been
committed by the domestic courts even such an error violates the
rights as guaranteed by the Convention.

“The link between the rule of law and democratic
principles has been clearly established by the EU. In its Annual
Report, the EU states that the rule of law and an accessible judicial
system are an essential framework for democracy and human rights
and that ‘Governments and public officials must act in accordance
with the law and within the limits set by the law’”.

148. It is a matter of record that governments and
public officials can in the ECtHR’s determination act above
laws, and outside the limits set by law, with impunity. Worst of
all the ECtHR has acted to aid the cover up of the misbehavior of
public and government officials.

149. We understand the Commission to have set out
certain key components of the rule of law, including a legislature
and executive giving full effect to human rights, an independent
judiciary, effective access to legal redress, and a legal system
which guarantees equality before the law. Current practice by the
Court often falls in direct conflict with the Rule of Law and the
Convention.

150. For the Commission, a legal system guaranteeing
equality before the law and providing ‘effective and accessible
means of legal recourse’ is an essential element of the rule
of law. The ECtHR has very obviously failed this test.

151. The basis for European Union action is clear.
The European Union seeks to uphold the universality and indivisibility
of human rights - civil, political, economic, social and cultural,
as reaffirmed by the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.
The protection of such rights, together with the promotion of pluralistic
democracy and effective guarantees for the rule of law and the fight
against poverty, are among the European Union’s essential
objectives.

152. The Treaty of Amsterdam - which came into force
on 1 May 1999 - reaffirms in its Article 6 that the European Union
‘is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect
for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law,
principles that are common to the Member States’ and emphasizes
in Article 49 that the respect of these principles also is required
by countries who apply for EU membership. This raises the question
how can EU accede to the ECHR when the ECtHR seriously and persistently
breaches the human rights of its citizens.

153. The Commission’s actions in the field of
external relations are supposed to be guided by compliance with
the rights and principles contained in the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights which was officially proclaimed at the Nice Summit in December
2000, with the view to promoting coherence between the EU’s
internal and external approaches. The Charter makes the overriding
importance and relevance of fundamental rights more visible to the
EU’s citizens by codifying material from various sources of
inspiration, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, common
constitutional traditions, and international instruments and the
present disreputable interpretation by ECtHR must not be allowed
to interfere with this.

154. The European Union is well placed to promote
democracy and human rights. It is continually seeking to improve
its own democratic governance, and the Commission is expected shortly
to adopt a White Paper on the theme. Acceding to the ECHR at this
time with the ECtHR acting in the maverick manner that can be demonstrated,
will defeat the object.

155. The Report from the Commission on the implementation
of measures intended to promote observance of Human Rights and Democratic
Principles in external relations for 1996 – 1999 Transparency
of public administration Brussels, recognises clearly that: -

Corruption is not simply a moral problem: it impacts
on public administration, distorts decision-making and undermines
the legitimacy of Governments, posing a serious threat to democracy.
Transparency, accountability and strong measures against corruption
are key elements of good government, and an important emphasis of
the Commission’s strategy in promoting institutional and administrative
reforms connected with democratisation and the rule of law. The
Commission set out several reforms which warrant particular attention,
including administrative decentralisation, whereby local democracy
can develop at a grass-roots level, making citizens ‘the government’s
partners rather than its dependants’, and measures to prevent
fraud and corruption. Accession to ECHR at this time will interfere
with these measures.

156. Parliament has also made it clear that widespread
corruption erodes confidence in the State’s ability to take
effective action and that the most important way of countering this
is to ‘help boost the openness and transparency of public
bodies’. One would ask if the EU would retain or gain more
power to influence the ECtHR by the accession. The answer is obviously
negative.

157. In light of serious international concern about
the level of corruption in the ECtHR, we ask Parliament to consider
providing assistance in support of an initiative of the organisation
aimed to expose and curb ‘grand corruption’ in the ECtHR
and which is targeted at corrupt practices which have the effect
of distorting official decision making, and which impact seriously
on the development process within COE.

158. It is difficult to come to terms with the probability
that there are proportionally more victims of the abuse of power
by the ECtHR than what is publicly admitted. This is due to the
lack of communication and the inaccessibility of the ECtHR documents,
such as all decisions made inadmissible and the Rapporteur’s
secret reports.

REMEDY SOUGHT

159. We petition the European Parliament in light
of the increase in judicial abuse and the persistent, widespread
and systematic violation of human rights by the ECtHR and in the
danger that the accession to the ECHR is going ahead unabated.

160. If the accession proceeds without any safe guards
in place, the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights will
be just a show piece, taking away the guaranteed rights provided
by the EU.

161. ECtHR must reform to be seen as transparent,
fair, impartial and an accountable institution before question on
accession can be even considered.

162. There must be an identified and publicly announced
policy on the “margins of appreciation” which are widely
seen by EU citizen as a vehicle open to legal abuse and successfully
used by the court to deny the Human Rights protection afforded by
the Convention.

163. It is important that all members of the EU Parliament
are aware of the malpractices occurring within the ECtHR and of
the fact that until the needed safety mechanisms are implemented,
accession to the ECHR can only jeopardise the human rights of EU
citizens.

CONCLUSION

164. The ideals and guarantees of citizens rights
encoded in the European Convention on Human Rights are only possible
in practice if all courts especially the ECtHR are Just courts.
The ECtHR is short on “Consistency, Accountability and Transparency
(CAT) - essential ingredients for democratic states.

165. Only if the courts of Member States can be guaranteed
to act with independence and impartiality and CAT, can the Court’s
present interpretation of Article 6 and Article 19 stand. However
when even the Court itself can be seen to be abusing power, how
can courts of Member States be expected not do the same.

166. As the United Nations Office for Drug Control
and Crime Prevention stated:-

“A serious impediment to the success of any
anti-corruption strategy is a corrupt judiciary. An ethically compromised
judiciary means that the legal and institutional mechanism designed
to curb corruption, however well-targeted, efficient or honest,
remains crippled. Unfortunately, evidence is steadily and increasingly
surfacing of widespread corruption in the courts in many parts of
the world.

To confront the problem, the UN is taking a variety
of approaches. It is examining judicial corruption in detail, and
seeking to identify means of addressing it, both in higher and lower
levels of court systems.”

167. In order for ECtHR to be accepted as a guardian
of Human Rights, there has to be a measure of accountability, transparency
and not, as at present, arrogance displayed by officials. The public
must be able to identify rights with the Court and not abuse of
rights. There needs to be a mechanism whereby there is accountability
and the running of the Court is transparent. There must also be
a mechanism whereby court officials are held accountable for any
wrong doings.

168. Unfortunately the new reforms merely introduce
rules to speed up the admissibility stage to reduce the Court workload
and will only encourage the further abuse of power. It seems there
is increasing materialism in the courts. Secret Reports by the Rapporteur
cannot be a guarantee of protection of the independence and impartiality
of the judiciary, while in many cases secrecy combined with the
lack of accountability seems to encourage more open and consistent
fraud.

169. For the Court to adopt Secret Reports in reaching
its decisions; reports not made available to any applicants, is
in itself a procedure not compatible with the Charter, the UDHR,
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966, and the Convention.

170. The report by CDDH-GDR (2001)010 states “The
Reflection Group decided unanimously against the idea that an inadmissibility
decision could be taken by a committee consisting solely of senior
Registry officials.” However from the communications between
applicants and the Court, (copies available) it would appear the
senior Registry has a history of pre-empting the Court in such admissibility
decisions by selecting ‘appropriate’ but inaccurate
facts of the case on behalf of the Court.

171. Furthermore with the name of the rapporteur appointed
by the Court being confidential, and not even made public after
the decision is reached, this creates even more doubt regarding
how the secret report is drawn up.

172. Interpretation of Article 6 as “Article
6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does
not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way
it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for
regulation by national law and the national courts” will continue
to leave citizens of the EU open to abuse by the courts of Member
States. It also takes away any redress afforded by the Charter and
Community Legislation as well as national legislation.

173. The ECtHR’s interpretation of Article 19
of the Convention has given the right to the courts of Member States
to abuse EU citizens with impunity when applying Community Legislation.

174. Bearing all this mind, it is important to recognise,
that in order to protect the rights of EU citizens under the Community
Legislation, until such a time the Court of the intergovernmental
organisation COE introduces safety measures to protect the human
rights of EU citizens in their new reform of protocol, it would
be disastrous for the EC/EU to accede to the ECHR particularly since
the ECtHR does not protect the rights guarantee by the Convention
and can and does act above the law.

175. No doubt in the interpretation of Community Legislation, if
the EU accedes to the ECHR, the present interpretation by the ECtHR
will have tremendous and detrimental effect on the interpretation
of the Charter. And this will have detrimental effect on the justice
and protection of human rights of EU citizens, since as our evidence
has proven the ECtHR interpretations have diminished the protection
to EU citizens afforded by the Convention.

176. We do not feel that within a democratic society,
the ECtHR should be above the law and unaccountable. If the accession
is to proceed, then the ECtHR cannot proceed on the basis of “secret
reports” in contravention of EC Directive 90/313/EEC.

177. We ask members of the Committee and Parliament
to give serious consideration to our petition and not to accede
to the ECHR lightly without first ensuring and securing the ECtHR
is acting in the best interest of EU citizens and has acted as an
international independent judiciary.

178. We also ask the Parliament to consider that ECJ
must have final jurisdiction and the power to interpret human rights
based on its own case law and the principles EU founded upon. ECJ
is more experienced in domestic matters, financial matters and human
rights matters and is important that it remains as an avenue of
redress for EU citizens rather than acceding to the ECHR until such
time as the rights protected by the Convention are guaranteed.